16.02.2015 14:43, Patrick Lauer пишет:
On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer
16.02.2015 14:44, Markos Chandras пишет:
On 02/16/15 13:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright
is complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Since gentoo lacks this sort of formal signed-off policy and in fact has
yet to move to git where it could be most easily tracked and enforced
(let alone such a policy created and formally agreed in the first place),
the
On 02/16/2015 13:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense. The
problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
On 16/02/15 12:58, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On 16 Feb 2015 19:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
Gentoo is
On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex
as
we think we can.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can we just have repoman directly fix the entry automatically since in
itself is nearly-pointless?
That would leave the door open to somebody arguing that the line was
changed without their knowledge. Absent some kind
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense. The
problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
lot of work as well. Maybe another
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 13:05:54 schrieb Rich Freeman:
Another option is remove that header and just state that all the .ebuild
are under $license in a simpler way...
As I said in my other email, that might be a simpler way to go. Of
course, does that make it acceptable to strip the
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can't we just only require the correct license statement and leave all
copyright statements as they are in whatever form?
Obviously appealing for its simplicity. But, I can see some issues:
1. What if you want
On 16 Feb 2015 13:12, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
except for two things:
* that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
[1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
So you want to change a
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
As far as removing the ebuild goes, that was probably the correct course of
action, because we Yanks love to make our legal code as bizzaringly complex as
we think we can. Though, the mistaken code is still in CVS in the
On 02/16/2015 07:12, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
except for two things:
* that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
[1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
So you want to change a longstanding
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11
Removed:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs.
No. Tree policy.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
perl, office, comrel, council
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but has
been policy for a very long time.
Just because you've been around forever
On 16 Feb 2015 12:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional, but
has
been policy for a
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Andreas K. Huettel
dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is not optional,
On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/16/15 13:31, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 06:13:10 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright
is complete bs.
The requirement for Gentoo copyright in the main tree is
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]
Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 12:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]
Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
Ah, ok, I guess it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/16/2015 12:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you should
at least drop him an email to let him know. How else do you expect
him to know he did something wrong? I am a bit worried QA is
On 16 Feb 2015 19:43, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2015 06:13:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
even then, deleting an ebuild purely due to different copyright is
complete bs. anyone who understands copyright knows the situation in
Gentoo is completely unenforceable. we have no CLA.
On 16 Feb 2015 12:53, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 12:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]
Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 06:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger escribió:
[...]
Anyway, wouldn't have been much more useful for all to spend the effort
used in remove the package on simply fixing the header? :/
Yeah, let's not bring
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/16/15 13:53, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
On 02/16/2015 12:44 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
I too believe that if you are reverting someone's commit you
should at least drop him an email to let him know. How else do
you expect him to know
Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 07:03:18 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
except for two things:
* that phrase is meaningless (legally speaking) and has been for a century
[1] * the header explicitly stated GPL-2 license
So you want to change a longstanding policy rule. Right. How about doing this
like
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Patrick Lauer (patrick)
patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
patrick 14/12/31 05:21:11
Removed: ChangeLog Manifest libusbhp-1.0.2.ebuild
30 matches
Mail list logo
